Lately I’ve been looking into some of the potential candidates for the Newbery and Caldecott medals that the American Library Association www.ala.org will hand out in January. As usual, it’s been both inspiring and disheartening.

Some publishers are clearly putting enormous care into turning out wonderful children’s books. At the same time, they are continuing to pander nakedly to the all-important school and library markets, sometimes undermining the accuracy or credibility of an otherwise worthy book.

A recent casualty is Lynn Curlee’s Skyscraper, a beautifully produced social history of the world’s tallest buildings, which has an elegant Art Deco design and color palette. This book might seem to have little in common with Brian Selznick’s novel in words and pictures, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. But like Selznick, Curlee has created a book for 8-to-12-year-olds that plays successfully with form. Skyscraper is a picture book with chapters (though they aren’t identified as such but are introduced by quotations from famous architects such as I.M. Pei and Robert Venturi).

A typical spread consists of a right-hand page with a color illustration of a skyscraper and a left-hand page with at least 250 words of text, more than in many chapter books. It’s a fresh treatment of its subject that brims with interesting material. Did you know that the Flatiron Building on Fifth Avenue, “the first great New York skyscraper,” looks like “the prow of a ship steaming up the avenue”?

But Skyscraper also shows how egregiously publishers can pander to the prevailing ideologies at many schools and libraries. Curlee writes that up to 3,400 people worked on the construction of the Empire State Building at the same time: “A number of these men were Native Americans, who had a reputation for working fearlessly at great heights.”

That might have been fine if the bookhad also mentioned a few of the other ethnic groups who worked on the first skyscrapers in far greater numbers than Native Americas, such as the Italian stonemasons who learned their trade in their homeland before applying their skills in America. It doesn’t. And through such omissions, this book insults the many Italian and other immigants who risked their lives to create the glorious skylines of Chicago, New York and other cities early in the 20th century. The message it sends to their young descendants is clear: “Your ancestors’ contributions aren’t as interesting or important as those of Native Americans.” But why would the Mohawks’ famous skywalking be less interesting to 9-year-olds than work on the great stone gargoyles that adorn so many skyscrapers?

It gets worse when Curlee describes the events of Sept. 11, 2001. On that day, he says, “a band of radical terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and attacked the United States, using the comandeered aircraft as lethal guided missiles.” That “radical terrorists” is absurd on two counts. First, the word “radical” tells you nothing — in a sense, every terrorist act is “radical.” And in the case of Sept. 11, the terrorists were the opposite of the usual definition of a “radical” — they were Islamic fundamentalists or reactionaries. Why doesn’t Skyscraper say this? Apparently because to do so might have offended some Muslims and made the book a tougher sell to schools and libraries. Instead we have a book that could leave some children with the idea that the attacks on the World Trade Center were carried out by, say, a remnant of the radical Weather Underground of the 1960s.

Obviously children’s picture books need to present their material at an appropriate level for their readers and omit some of the nuances of books for adults. But many children’s authors have shown that this doesn’t have to involve spinning history in a way that slights or denies the role — good or bad — that different ethnic groups have played in it, whether they are Italian stonemasons or Islamic fundamentalists. Those authors are the ones who deserve awards from librarians and others.

Best line: One of the strengths of Skyscraper is that it looks beyond architecture and situates buildings in a human context, as in this passage: “Immense buildings cause controversy because they do not belong just to their owners. Once they are built, everyone must live with them. They totally transform the neighborhoods in which they are raised. Since they consume enormous amounts of energy and cause congestion, there are very real questions about their worth. Who should make the decisions about building structures that affect everyone? Just how do skyscrapers benefit society? How do skyscrapers contribute or detract from the conditions of life in a city? What form should our cities take? How densely should huge buildings be packed together? How big is too big?”

Related

6 Comments

So glad have a librarian’s perspective on this one! I often have the sense that authors and publishers are giving librarians what they THINK librarians want (and trying to second-guess the Caldecott and Newbery committees)rather than what librarians do want, which is great books. It’s so much better for authors just to write the best books, whether for children or adults.

I fear the minefield of Political Correctness will do a great disservice to our children. It’s happening in the UK all the time. At the risk of using another non-PC phrase, we have to call a spade a spade; in other words, if Islamic Fundamentalists attacked the WTC, then let’s say it, this doesn’t pre-dispose us to teaching intolerance of the wider muslim community. Instead of treading on eggshells, lets give children all the facts, they are smarter than we know. On another point, we mentioned in comments some time ago the role of The Richard and Judy show in The UK mirroring that of Oprah; bringing quality literature to the masses. I am saddened to report that their show is being taken off the air (Daily Mail Nov 3) I am in complete agreement with the writer of the article, Amanda Platell, who asks if we should really be surprised. Richard and Judy are happily married heterosexuals, devoted parents, hard working professionals and middle-aged role models. She believes TV bosses no longer want to make programmes FOR people like that, let alone WITH them. I agree. They are too busy pandering to a burgeoning illiterate underclass with dross like The Jeremy Kyle show (A sort of UK Jerry Springer-lite) Lets hope good books don’t begin to gather dust on the shelves.

Kev: Thanks for the update on Richard and Judy. Coincidentally I will soon review one of their picks that I liked quite a bit, “The Wedding Officer” (maybe later this week). So you may have saved me from inadvertently suggesting that the show will still be on the air …
Jan

I have just discovered your review of my book, SKYSCRAPER. As an author/illustrator, I have never responded to a review before, but here goes:
You have singled out 2 small phrases in a very dense and lengthy text.
The words are totally mine. My editor had nothing to say about these particular phrases during the making of this book.
As for pandering to the school/library market, whether you believe it or not, I actually don’t care at all about what might sell. If I am lucky enough to get a contract to do a book about something that interest me, I run with it. My subjects appeal to the people that purchase books for schools and libraries. So what?
I included the part about Native Americans because I thought it was an interesting fact, and it happens to be true. I fail to see how naming the contributions of one group of people denigrates or insults another group. That idea is simply bizarre.
The phrase “radical terrorists” was a reference to their evident fanaticism – radical in the sense of “extreme”, which is one of the definitions in MY dictionary (I just looked it up). I was not referring to their position on a simplistic political spectrum from “left” to ” right”, a concept way beyond the scope of a children’s picture book about tall buildings.

In response to Mr. Curlee’s comment, “I fail to see how naming how the contributions of one group of people denigrates or insults another group. That idea is simply bizarre”:

For generations, books for the school and library market left out the contributions of too many blacks, women and other groups. This has changed because many, if not most, Americans have come to accept that sometimes naming the contributions of one group, such as white males, DOES denigrate and insult others. And Mr. Curlee’s preference for the definition in his dictionary doesn’t mean that other readers of his book won’t use other dictionaries and come away with a different impression from the one he intended.